Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1011 | control, N = 511 | treatment, N = 501 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 100 | 49.90 ± 13.25 (25 - 74) | 50.31 ± 13.31 (25 - 74) | 49.50 ± 13.32 (28 - 73) | 0.761 |
Unknown | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||
gender | 101 | 0.692 | |||
f | 75 (74%) | 37 (73%) | 38 (76%) | ||
m | 26 (26%) | 14 (27%) | 12 (24%) | ||
occupation | 101 | 0.735 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 13 (13%) | 6 (12%) | 7 (14%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (7.9%) | 5 (9.8%) | 3 (6.0%) | ||
other | 2 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.0%) | ||
part_time | 17 (17%) | 8 (16%) | 9 (18%) | ||
retired | 25 (25%) | 12 (24%) | 13 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 2 (4.0%) | ||
student | 2 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.0%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
unemploy | 26 (26%) | 15 (29%) | 11 (22%) | ||
marital | 101 | 0.699 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
divore | 10 (9.9%) | 7 (14%) | 3 (6.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 25 (25%) | 13 (25%) | 12 (24%) | ||
none | 56 (55%) | 26 (51%) | 30 (60%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
widow | 5 (5.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 3 (6.0%) | ||
edu | 101 | 0.555 | |||
bachelor | 26 (26%) | 9 (18%) | 17 (34%) | ||
diploma | 20 (20%) | 13 (25%) | 7 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
postgraduate | 8 (7.9%) | 4 (7.8%) | 4 (8.0%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 3 (6.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 13 (13%) | 8 (16%) | 5 (10%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 23 (23%) | 12 (24%) | 11 (22%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 3 (3.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | ||
fam_income | 101 | 0.874 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 3 (6.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.0%) | 2 (3.9%) | 3 (6.0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 6 (5.9%) | 2 (3.9%) | 4 (8.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.0%) | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.0%) | 3 (5.9%) | 1 (2.0%) | ||
20001_above | 19 (19%) | 9 (18%) | 10 (20%) | ||
2001_4000 | 15 (15%) | 10 (20%) | 5 (10%) | ||
4001_6000 | 11 (11%) | 5 (9.8%) | 6 (12%) | ||
6001_8000 | 10 (9.9%) | 6 (12%) | 4 (8.0%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (6.9%) | 3 (5.9%) | 4 (8.0%) | ||
below_2000 | 17 (17%) | 9 (18%) | 8 (16%) | ||
medication | 101 | 89 (88%) | 46 (90%) | 43 (86%) | 0.515 |
onset_duration | 99 | 14.70 ± 10.49 (0 - 56) | 15.85 ± 11.49 (1 - 56) | 13.47 ± 9.27 (0 - 35) | 0.260 |
Unknown | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
onset_age | 98 | 35.44 ± 14.50 (10 - 65) | 34.45 ± 13.56 (10 - 61) | 36.48 ± 15.50 (15 - 65) | 0.492 |
Unknown | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1011 | control, N = 511 | treatment, N = 501 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 101 | 3.09 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 3.16 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.02 ± 1.15 (1 - 5) | 0.567 |
recovery_stage_b | 101 | 17.94 ± 2.69 (9 - 24) | 17.76 ± 2.74 (9 - 23) | 18.12 ± 2.65 (13 - 24) | 0.510 |
ras_confidence | 101 | 30.13 ± 5.01 (18 - 45) | 29.73 ± 4.33 (19 - 40) | 30.54 ± 5.64 (18 - 45) | 0.417 |
ras_willingness | 101 | 12.03 ± 2.01 (7 - 15) | 11.88 ± 1.96 (8 - 15) | 12.18 ± 2.07 (7 - 15) | 0.459 |
ras_goal | 101 | 17.46 ± 3.05 (11 - 25) | 17.33 ± 2.86 (12 - 24) | 17.58 ± 3.26 (11 - 25) | 0.687 |
ras_reliance | 101 | 13.24 ± 2.89 (7 - 20) | 13.12 ± 2.65 (8 - 18) | 13.36 ± 3.13 (7 - 20) | 0.675 |
ras_domination | 101 | 9.96 ± 2.34 (3 - 15) | 10.27 ± 2.24 (3 - 15) | 9.64 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 0.175 |
symptom | 101 | 30.15 ± 9.59 (14 - 56) | 31.22 ± 9.76 (14 - 55) | 29.06 ± 9.38 (15 - 56) | 0.261 |
slof_work | 101 | 22.61 ± 4.72 (10 - 30) | 22.37 ± 4.21 (13 - 30) | 22.86 ± 5.22 (10 - 30) | 0.606 |
slof_relationship | 101 | 25.58 ± 5.86 (11 - 35) | 24.92 ± 5.77 (13 - 35) | 26.26 ± 5.94 (11 - 35) | 0.253 |
satisfaction | 101 | 20.56 ± 6.87 (5 - 35) | 19.18 ± 6.43 (5 - 31) | 21.98 ± 7.08 (5 - 35) | 0.040 |
mhc_emotional | 101 | 11.16 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 10.76 ± 3.66 (3 - 17) | 11.56 ± 4.00 (4 - 18) | 0.300 |
mhc_social | 101 | 15.03 ± 5.49 (5 - 30) | 15.06 ± 5.42 (7 - 30) | 15.00 ± 5.62 (5 - 27) | 0.957 |
mhc_psychological | 101 | 21.97 ± 6.28 (6 - 36) | 21.57 ± 5.91 (9 - 36) | 22.38 ± 6.67 (6 - 36) | 0.519 |
resilisnce | 101 | 16.79 ± 4.56 (6 - 30) | 16.29 ± 4.16 (6 - 24) | 17.30 ± 4.93 (7 - 30) | 0.270 |
social_provision | 101 | 13.68 ± 2.83 (5 - 20) | 13.16 ± 2.38 (8 - 20) | 14.22 ± 3.16 (5 - 20) | 0.059 |
els_value_living | 101 | 17.15 ± 3.02 (5 - 25) | 16.67 ± 2.46 (12 - 22) | 17.64 ± 3.46 (5 - 25) | 0.106 |
els_life_fulfill | 101 | 12.74 ± 3.37 (4 - 20) | 11.96 ± 3.19 (5 - 19) | 13.54 ± 3.39 (4 - 20) | 0.018 |
els | 101 | 29.89 ± 5.85 (9 - 45) | 28.63 ± 4.92 (18 - 38) | 31.18 ± 6.46 (9 - 45) | 0.028 |
social_connect | 101 | 26.53 ± 9.16 (8 - 48) | 27.69 ± 8.19 (8 - 45) | 25.36 ± 10.00 (8 - 48) | 0.204 |
shs_agency | 101 | 14.50 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.78 ± 4.58 (3 - 21) | 15.24 ± 5.31 (3 - 24) | 0.143 |
shs_pathway | 101 | 16.51 ± 3.94 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.79 (8 - 24) | 17.02 ± 4.06 (4 - 24) | 0.203 |
shs | 101 | 31.02 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 29.80 ± 8.02 (13 - 45) | 32.26 ± 8.89 (7 - 48) | 0.148 |
esteem | 101 | 12.66 ± 1.76 (10 - 20) | 12.88 ± 1.66 (10 - 18) | 12.44 ± 1.84 (10 - 20) | 0.207 |
mlq_search | 101 | 14.89 ± 3.52 (3 - 21) | 14.61 ± 3.25 (6 - 21) | 15.18 ± 3.78 (3 - 21) | 0.416 |
mlq_presence | 101 | 13.38 ± 4.30 (3 - 21) | 13.20 ± 3.70 (5 - 21) | 13.56 ± 4.86 (3 - 21) | 0.673 |
mlq | 101 | 28.27 ± 6.99 (6 - 42) | 27.80 ± 6.10 (12 - 40) | 28.74 ± 7.82 (6 - 42) | 0.503 |
empower | 101 | 19.39 ± 4.26 (6 - 30) | 18.84 ± 3.90 (11 - 30) | 19.94 ± 4.57 (6 - 30) | 0.197 |
ismi_resistance | 101 | 14.64 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 14.31 ± 2.13 (10 - 19) | 14.98 ± 2.97 (5 - 20) | 0.198 |
ismi_discrimation | 101 | 11.44 ± 3.14 (5 - 20) | 12.14 ± 2.89 (5 - 19) | 10.72 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.023 |
sss_affective | 101 | 10.01 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.41 ± 3.45 (3 - 18) | 9.60 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 0.267 |
sss_behavior | 101 | 9.65 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 10.22 ± 3.88 (3 - 18) | 9.08 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.138 |
sss_cognitive | 101 | 8.05 ± 3.69 (3 - 18) | 8.57 ± 3.83 (3 - 18) | 7.52 ± 3.50 (3 - 18) | 0.154 |
sss | 101 | 27.71 ± 10.24 (9 - 54) | 29.20 ± 10.11 (9 - 54) | 26.20 ± 10.25 (9 - 54) | 0.142 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.16 | 0.163 | 2.84, 3.48 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.137 | 0.231 | -0.590, 0.317 | 0.555 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.137 | 0.244 | -0.342, 0.615 | 0.577 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.421 | 0.351 | -0.267, 1.11 | 0.234 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.8 | 0.396 | 17.0, 18.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.355 | 0.563 | -0.747, 1.46 | 0.529 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.221 | 0.553 | -1.31, 0.864 | 0.691 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.588 | 0.796 | -0.972, 2.15 | 0.463 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.718 | 28.3, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.815 | 1.020 | -1.18, 2.81 | 0.426 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.805 | 0.766 | -0.696, 2.31 | 0.298 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.02 | 1.103 | -1.15, 3.18 | 0.361 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.284 | 11.3, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.298 | 0.403 | -0.492, 1.09 | 0.462 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.642 | 0.302 | -1.23, -0.050 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.755 | 0.435 | -0.098, 1.61 | 0.088 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.3 | 0.444 | 16.5, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.247 | 0.632 | -0.991, 1.48 | 0.697 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.435 | 0.506 | -1.43, 0.556 | 0.393 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.54 | 0.728 | 0.115, 2.97 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.404 | 12.3, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.242 | 0.574 | -0.883, 1.37 | 0.674 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.358 | 0.411 | -0.449, 1.16 | 0.388 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.593 | -0.152, 2.17 | 0.094 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.3 | 0.321 | 9.65, 10.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.635 | 0.456 | -1.53, 0.260 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.288 | 0.434 | -1.14, 0.563 | 0.510 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.42 | 0.625 | 0.197, 2.65 | 0.026 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.2 | 1.336 | 28.6, 33.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.16 | 1.899 | -5.88, 1.57 | 0.259 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.363 | 1.104 | -2.53, 1.80 | 0.744 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.874 | 1.592 | -3.99, 2.25 | 0.585 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.660 | 21.1, 23.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.487 | 0.939 | -1.35, 2.33 | 0.605 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.175 | 0.664 | -1.48, 1.13 | 0.793 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.088 | 0.957 | -1.79, 1.96 | 0.927 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.9 | 0.813 | 23.3, 26.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.34 | 1.155 | -0.925, 3.60 | 0.249 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.14 | 0.771 | -2.66, 0.369 | 0.144 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.53 | 1.111 | -0.653, 3.70 | 0.175 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.965 | 17.3, 21.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.80 | 1.372 | 0.114, 5.49 | 0.043 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.871 | 1.078 | -1.24, 2.98 | 0.422 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.080 | 1.553 | -3.12, 2.96 | 0.959 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.8 | 0.532 | 9.72, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.795 | 0.756 | -0.687, 2.28 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.361 | 0.489 | -0.598, 1.32 | 0.464 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.452 | 0.705 | -1.83, 0.930 | 0.524 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.802 | 13.5, 16.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.059 | 1.140 | -2.29, 2.17 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.622 | 0.865 | -1.07, 2.32 | 0.475 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.476 | 1.246 | -2.92, 1.97 | 0.704 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.921 | 19.8, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.811 | 1.309 | -1.75, 3.38 | 0.537 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.774 | 0.960 | -1.11, 2.66 | 0.424 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.505 | 1.383 | -3.22, 2.21 | 0.716 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.626 | 15.1, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.890 | -0.739, 2.75 | 0.261 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.128 | 0.717 | -1.28, 1.53 | 0.859 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.32 | 1.033 | -0.700, 3.35 | 0.205 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.400 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.06 | 0.568 | -0.051, 2.18 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.535 | 0.475 | -1.47, 0.397 | 0.265 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.620 | 0.685 | -0.721, 1.96 | 0.368 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.052 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.431 | 15.8, 17.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.973 | 0.613 | -0.228, 2.18 | 0.115 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.240 | 0.488 | -0.716, 1.20 | 0.624 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.180 | 0.703 | -1.20, 1.56 | 0.798 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.0 | 0.454 | 11.1, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.58 | 0.645 | 0.315, 2.84 | 0.016 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.630 | 0.413 | -0.180, 1.44 | 0.133 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.311 | 0.595 | -1.48, 0.856 | 0.603 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.054 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.6 | 0.813 | 27.0, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.55 | 1.155 | 0.288, 4.82 | 0.029 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.851 | 0.756 | -0.630, 2.33 | 0.265 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.088 | 1.089 | -2.22, 2.05 | 0.936 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.7 | 1.304 | 25.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.33 | 1.853 | -5.96, 1.31 | 0.212 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.10 | 1.173 | -1.20, 3.40 | 0.353 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.94 | 1.691 | -6.26, 0.371 | 0.087 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.695 | 12.4, 15.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.46 | 0.988 | -0.481, 3.39 | 0.144 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.126 | 0.689 | -1.22, 1.48 | 0.856 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.643 | 0.992 | -1.30, 2.59 | 0.520 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.030 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.545 | 15.0, 17.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.00 | 0.775 | -0.518, 2.52 | 0.199 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.126 | 0.533 | -0.918, 1.17 | 0.814 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.157 | 0.767 | -1.66, 1.35 | 0.838 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.178 | 27.5, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.46 | 1.674 | -0.826, 5.74 | 0.145 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.253 | 1.118 | -1.94, 2.44 | 0.822 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.492 | 1.611 | -2.67, 3.65 | 0.761 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.225 | 12.4, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.442 | 0.320 | -1.07, 0.185 | 0.170 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.096 | 0.318 | -0.720, 0.527 | 0.764 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.376 | 0.458 | -0.521, 1.27 | 0.416 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.485 | 13.7, 15.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.572 | 0.689 | -0.779, 1.92 | 0.408 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.208 | 0.609 | -0.986, 1.40 | 0.734 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.320 | 0.877 | -2.04, 1.40 | 0.716 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.596 | 12.0, 14.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.364 | 0.847 | -1.30, 2.02 | 0.668 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.310 | 0.649 | -0.961, 1.58 | 0.634 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.007 | 0.934 | -1.82, 1.84 | 0.994 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 0.979 | 25.9, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.936 | 1.391 | -1.79, 3.66 | 0.502 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.525 | 1.116 | -1.66, 2.71 | 0.640 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.280 | 1.607 | -3.43, 2.87 | 0.862 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.597 | 17.7, 20.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.10 | 0.848 | -0.565, 2.76 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.212 | 0.556 | -0.879, 1.30 | 0.705 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.576 | 0.802 | -2.15, 0.995 | 0.475 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.3 | 0.353 | 13.6, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.666 | 0.502 | -0.318, 1.65 | 0.187 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.070 | 0.463 | -0.837, 0.978 | 0.880 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.235 | 0.666 | -1.07, 1.54 | 0.725 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.439 | 11.3, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.42 | 0.624 | -2.64, -0.195 | 0.025 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.411 | 0.452 | -1.30, 0.475 | 0.367 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.366 | 0.651 | -0.910, 1.64 | 0.576 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.501 | 9.43, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.812 | 0.712 | -2.21, 0.584 | 0.257 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.046 | 0.500 | -0.934, 1.03 | 0.927 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.14 | 0.720 | -2.55, 0.275 | 0.120 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.037 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.525 | 9.19, 11.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.14 | 0.746 | -2.60, 0.327 | 0.131 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.116 | 0.542 | -1.18, 0.947 | 0.832 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.597 | 0.781 | -2.13, 0.933 | 0.447 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.035 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.57 | 0.509 | 7.57, 9.57 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.724 | -2.47, 0.370 | 0.150 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.606 | 0.527 | -0.426, 1.64 | 0.254 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.17 | 0.759 | -2.66, 0.314 | 0.127 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.044 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 1.413 | 26.4, 32.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.00 | 2.008 | -6.93, 0.939 | 0.138 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.534 | 1.321 | -2.06, 3.12 | 0.688 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.89 | 1.904 | -6.62, 0.839 | 0.134 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.043 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.16 (95% CI [2.84, 3.48], t(147) = 19.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.32], t(147) = -0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.61], t(147) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.11], t(147) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.95])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.76 (95% CI [16.99, 18.54], t(147) = 44.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.46], t(147) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.86], t(147) = -0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.15], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.73 (95% CI [28.32, 31.13], t(147) = 41.43, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.81], t(147) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.31], t(147) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.18], t(147) = 0.92, p = 0.357; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.88 (95% CI [11.33, 12.44], t(147) = 41.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.09], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.23, -0.05], t(147) = -2.13, p = 0.034; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.61], t(147) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.33 (95% CI [16.46, 18.20], t(147) = 39.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.48], t(147) = 0.39, p = 0.696; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.56], t(147) = -0.86, p = 0.390; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [0.11, 2.97], t(147) = 2.12, p = 0.034; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.04, 0.93])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.33, 13.91], t(147) = 32.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.37], t(147) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.16], t(147) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.17], t(147) = 1.70, p = 0.088; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.74])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.65, 10.90], t(147) = 32.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.26], t(147) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.56], t(147) = -0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.42, 95% CI [0.20, 2.65], t(147) = 2.28, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.09, 1.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.22 (95% CI [28.60, 33.84], t(147) = 23.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.16, 95% CI [-5.88, 1.57], t(147) = -1.13, p = 0.256; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.53, 1.80], t(147) = -0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-3.99, 2.25], t(147) = -0.55, p = 0.583; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.37 (95% CI [21.08, 23.67], t(147) = 33.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.33], t(147) = 0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.13], t(147) = -0.26, p = 0.793; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.79, 1.96], t(147) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.92 (95% CI [23.33, 26.51], t(147) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.93, 3.60], t(147) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.37], t(147) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.65, 3.70], t(147) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.64])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.18 (95% CI [17.28, 21.07], t(147) = 19.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.80, 95% CI [0.11, 5.49], t(147) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [0.02, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.98], t(147) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-3.12, 2.96], t(147) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.17e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.76 (95% CI [9.72, 11.81], t(147) = 20.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.28], t(147) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.32], t(147) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.83, 0.93], t(147) = -0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.06 (95% CI [13.49, 16.63], t(147) = 18.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.29, 2.17], t(147) = -0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.32], t(147) = 0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.92, 1.97], t(147) = -0.38, p = 0.702; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.57 (95% CI [19.76, 23.37], t(147) = 23.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.75, 3.38], t(147) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.66], t(147) = 0.81, p = 0.420; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-3.22, 2.21], t(147) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.07, 17.52], t(147) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.75], t(147) = 1.13, p = 0.259; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.53], t(147) = 0.18, p = 0.858; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.70, 3.35], t(147) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.75])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.37, 13.94], t(147) = 32.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.05, 2.18], t(147) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.74])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.40], t(147) = -1.12, p = 0.261; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.96], t(147) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.67 (95% CI [15.82, 17.51], t(147) = 38.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.18], t(147) = 1.59, p = 0.112; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.20], t(147) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.56], t(147) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.07, 12.85], t(147) = 26.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.58, 95% CI [0.32, 2.84], t(147) = 2.45, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.10, 0.87])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.44], t(147) = 1.52, p = 0.127; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.86], t(147) = -0.52, p = 0.601; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.63 (95% CI [27.03, 30.22], t(147) = 35.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.55, 95% CI [0.29, 4.82], t(147) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.43, 95% CI [0.05, 0.82])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.33], t(147) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.22, 2.05], t(147) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.69 (95% CI [25.13, 30.24], t(147) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.33, 95% CI [-5.96, 1.31], t(147) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-1.20, 3.40], t(147) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-6.26, 0.37], t(147) = -1.74, p = 0.082; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.78 (95% CI [12.42, 15.15], t(147) = 19.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.48, 3.39], t(147) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.48], t(147) = 0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.59], t(147) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.52])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.95, 17.09], t(147) = 29.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.52], t(147) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.17], t(147) = 0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.66, 1.35], t(147) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.80 (95% CI [27.49, 32.11], t(147) = 25.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.46, 95% CI [-0.83, 5.74], t(147) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.94, 2.44], t(147) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-2.67, 3.65], t(147) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.88 (95% CI [12.44, 13.32], t(147) = 57.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.19], t(147) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.53], t(147) = -0.30, p = 0.762; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.27], t(147) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.61 (95% CI [13.66, 15.56], t(147) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.92], t(147) = 0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.40], t(147) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.40], t(147) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.20 (95% CI [12.03, 14.36], t(147) = 22.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.02], t(147) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.58], t(147) = 0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.17e-03, 95% CI [-1.82, 1.84], t(147) = 7.67e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.70e-03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [25.89, 29.72], t(147) = 28.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-1.79, 3.66], t(147) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.66, 2.71], t(147) = 0.47, p = 0.638; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-3.43, 2.87], t(147) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.84 (95% CI [17.67, 20.01], t(147) = 31.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.76], t(147) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.30], t(147) = 0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-2.15, 1.00], t(147) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.31 (95% CI [13.62, 15.01], t(147) = 40.49, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.65], t(147) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.98], t(147) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.54], t(147) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.14 (95% CI [11.28, 13.00], t(147) = 27.66, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-2.64, -0.19], t(147) = -2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.82, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.48], t(147) = -0.91, p = 0.363; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.64], t(147) = 0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.41 (95% CI [9.43, 11.39], t(147) = 20.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.58], t(147) = -1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.03], t(147) = 0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.55, 0.28], t(147) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.07])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.19, 11.24], t(147) = 19.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.33], t(147) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.95], t(147) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.13, 0.93], t(147) = -0.76, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.57 (95% CI [7.57, 9.57], t(147) = 16.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.47, 0.37], t(147) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.64], t(147) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.31], t(147) = -1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.20 (95% CI [26.43, 31.96], t(147) = 20.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.00, 95% CI [-6.93, 0.94], t(147) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.06, 3.12], t(147) = 0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.89, 95% CI [-6.62, 0.84], t(147) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.08])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 483.107 | 492.198 | -238.553 | 477.107 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 483.850 | 502.033 | -235.925 | 471.850 | 5.257 | 3 | 0.154 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 746.911 | 756.002 | -370.455 | 740.911 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 751.216 | 769.398 | -369.608 | 739.216 | 1.695 | 3 | 0.638 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 912.211 | 921.303 | -453.106 | 906.211 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 910.691 | 928.874 | -449.346 | 898.691 | 7.520 | 3 | 0.057 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 626.880 | 635.971 | -310.440 | 620.880 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 626.530 | 644.712 | -307.265 | 614.530 | 6.350 | 3 | 0.096 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 770.353 | 779.444 | -382.176 | 764.353 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 769.916 | 788.099 | -378.958 | 757.916 | 6.436 | 3 | 0.092 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 736.030 | 745.121 | -365.015 | 730.030 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 730.583 | 748.765 | -359.291 | 718.583 | 11.447 | 3 | 0.010 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 685.524 | 694.615 | -339.762 | 679.524 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 684.693 | 702.876 | -336.347 | 672.693 | 6.830 | 3 | 0.078 |
symptom | null | 3 | 1,073.717 | 1,082.809 | -533.859 | 1,067.717 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 1,076.740 | 1,094.922 | -532.370 | 1,064.740 | 2.978 | 3 | 0.395 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 874.335 | 883.426 | -434.167 | 868.335 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 879.914 | 898.096 | -433.957 | 867.914 | 0.421 | 3 | 0.936 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 936.813 | 945.904 | -465.407 | 930.813 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 937.862 | 956.045 | -462.931 | 925.862 | 4.951 | 3 | 0.175 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 1,005.325 | 1,014.416 | -499.663 | 999.325 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 1,005.630 | 1,023.813 | -496.815 | 993.630 | 5.695 | 3 | 0.127 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 800.792 | 809.884 | -397.396 | 794.792 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 805.348 | 823.530 | -396.674 | 793.348 | 1.445 | 3 | 0.695 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 940.269 | 949.360 | -467.135 | 934.269 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 945.674 | 963.857 | -466.837 | 933.674 | 0.595 | 3 | 0.898 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 980.062 | 989.153 | -487.031 | 974.062 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 985.033 | 1,003.215 | -486.516 | 973.033 | 1.029 | 3 | 0.794 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 875.978 | 885.070 | -434.989 | 869.978 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 875.505 | 893.688 | -431.753 | 863.505 | 6.473 | 3 | 0.091 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 742.211 | 751.302 | -368.105 | 736.211 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 741.469 | 759.652 | -364.735 | 729.469 | 6.741 | 3 | 0.081 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 758.338 | 767.429 | -376.169 | 752.338 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 760.266 | 778.449 | -374.133 | 748.266 | 4.072 | 3 | 0.254 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 758.151 | 767.242 | -376.075 | 752.151 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 755.619 | 773.802 | -371.810 | 743.619 | 8.531 | 3 | 0.036 |
els | null | 3 | 937.304 | 946.396 | -465.652 | 931.304 | |||
els | random | 6 | 935.999 | 954.182 | -462.000 | 923.999 | 7.305 | 3 | 0.063 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 1,077.709 | 1,086.801 | -535.855 | 1,071.709 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 1,077.480 | 1,095.662 | -532.740 | 1,065.480 | 6.230 | 3 | 0.101 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 892.385 | 901.476 | -443.192 | 886.385 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 894.205 | 912.387 | -441.102 | 882.205 | 4.180 | 3 | 0.243 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 814.123 | 823.214 | -404.061 | 808.123 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 818.394 | 836.577 | -403.197 | 806.394 | 1.728 | 3 | 0.631 |
shs | null | 3 | 1,048.576 | 1,057.667 | -521.288 | 1,042.576 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 1,051.517 | 1,069.699 | -519.758 | 1,039.517 | 3.059 | 3 | 0.383 |
esteem | null | 3 | 575.576 | 584.667 | -284.788 | 569.576 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 579.411 | 597.593 | -283.705 | 567.411 | 2.165 | 3 | 0.539 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 799.881 | 808.973 | -396.941 | 793.881 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 805.160 | 823.342 | -396.580 | 793.160 | 0.722 | 3 | 0.868 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 850.453 | 859.544 | -422.226 | 844.453 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 855.782 | 873.965 | -421.891 | 843.782 | 0.670 | 3 | 0.880 |
mlq | null | 3 | 1,006.438 | 1,015.530 | -500.219 | 1,000.438 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 1,011.736 | 1,029.918 | -499.868 | 999.736 | 0.703 | 3 | 0.873 |
empower | null | 3 | 837.517 | 846.608 | -415.758 | 831.517 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 841.622 | 859.805 | -414.811 | 829.622 | 1.895 | 3 | 0.594 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 708.686 | 717.777 | -351.343 | 702.686 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 711.697 | 729.880 | -349.849 | 699.697 | 2.988 | 3 | 0.393 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 756.677 | 765.768 | -375.338 | 750.677 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 756.998 | 775.180 | -372.499 | 744.998 | 5.679 | 3 | 0.128 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 795.782 | 804.874 | -394.891 | 789.782 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 794.654 | 812.836 | -391.327 | 782.654 | 7.128 | 3 | 0.068 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 811.105 | 820.196 | -402.552 | 805.105 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 812.123 | 830.306 | -400.061 | 800.123 | 4.982 | 3 | 0.173 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 803.336 | 812.427 | -398.668 | 797.336 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 802.954 | 821.137 | -395.477 | 790.954 | 6.381 | 3 | 0.094 |
sss | null | 3 | 1,106.609 | 1,115.701 | -550.305 | 1,100.609 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 1,105.666 | 1,123.849 | -546.833 | 1,093.666 | 6.943 | 3 | 0.074 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 51 | 3.16 ± 1.16 | 50 | 3.02 ± 1.16 | 0.555 | 0.139 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 27 | 3.29 ± 1.15 | -0.139 | 25 | 3.58 ± 1.15 | -0.567 | 0.375 | -0.289 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 51 | 17.76 ± 2.83 | 50 | 18.12 ± 2.83 | 0.529 | -0.162 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 27 | 17.54 ± 2.74 | 0.101 | 25 | 18.49 ± 2.73 | -0.167 | 0.216 | -0.430 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 51 | 29.73 ± 5.12 | 50 | 30.54 ± 5.12 | 0.426 | -0.278 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 27 | 30.53 ± 4.56 | -0.275 | 25 | 32.36 ± 4.52 | -0.622 | 0.148 | -0.625 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 51 | 11.88 ± 2.03 | 50 | 12.18 ± 2.03 | 0.462 | -0.258 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 27 | 11.24 ± 1.80 | 0.556 | 25 | 12.29 ± 1.79 | -0.097 | 0.036 | -0.911 |
ras_goal | 1st | 51 | 17.33 ± 3.17 | 50 | 17.58 ± 3.17 | 0.697 | -0.127 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 27 | 16.90 ± 2.88 | 0.223 | 25 | 18.69 ± 2.86 | -0.569 | 0.026 | -0.919 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 51 | 13.12 ± 2.88 | 50 | 13.36 ± 2.88 | 0.674 | -0.155 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 27 | 13.48 ± 2.53 | -0.228 | 25 | 14.73 ± 2.51 | -0.872 | 0.075 | -0.799 |
ras_domination | 1st | 51 | 10.27 ± 2.29 | 50 | 9.64 ± 2.29 | 0.167 | 0.371 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 27 | 9.99 ± 2.20 | 0.168 | 25 | 10.77 ± 2.19 | -0.662 | 0.199 | -0.460 |
symptom | 1st | 51 | 31.22 ± 9.54 | 50 | 29.06 ± 9.54 | 0.259 | 0.519 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 27 | 30.85 ± 7.94 | 0.087 | 25 | 27.82 ± 7.83 | 0.298 | 0.168 | 0.730 |
slof_work | 1st | 51 | 22.37 ± 4.72 | 50 | 22.86 ± 4.72 | 0.605 | -0.193 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 27 | 22.20 ± 4.13 | 0.069 | 25 | 22.77 ± 4.09 | 0.034 | 0.614 | -0.227 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 51 | 24.92 ± 5.80 | 50 | 26.26 ± 5.80 | 0.249 | -0.458 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 27 | 23.78 ± 5.00 | 0.391 | 25 | 26.64 ± 4.94 | -0.131 | 0.039 | -0.980 |
satisfaction | 1st | 51 | 19.18 ± 6.89 | 50 | 21.98 ± 6.89 | 0.043 | -0.677 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 27 | 20.05 ± 6.22 | -0.210 | 25 | 22.77 ± 6.17 | -0.191 | 0.115 | -0.658 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 51 | 10.76 ± 3.80 | 50 | 11.56 ± 3.80 | 0.295 | -0.430 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 27 | 11.13 ± 3.24 | -0.195 | 25 | 11.47 ± 3.21 | 0.049 | 0.702 | -0.185 |
mhc_social | 1st | 51 | 15.06 ± 5.73 | 50 | 15.00 ± 5.73 | 0.959 | 0.018 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 27 | 15.68 ± 5.11 | -0.188 | 25 | 15.15 ± 5.07 | -0.044 | 0.706 | 0.162 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 51 | 21.57 ± 6.58 | 50 | 22.38 ± 6.58 | 0.537 | -0.221 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 27 | 22.34 ± 5.81 | -0.211 | 25 | 22.65 ± 5.76 | -0.073 | 0.849 | -0.083 |
resilisnce | 1st | 51 | 16.29 ± 4.47 | 50 | 17.30 ± 4.47 | 0.261 | -0.364 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 27 | 16.42 ± 4.07 | -0.046 | 25 | 18.75 ± 4.04 | -0.526 | 0.040 | -0.844 |
social_provision | 1st | 51 | 13.16 ± 2.86 | 50 | 14.22 ± 2.86 | 0.064 | -0.578 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 27 | 12.62 ± 2.63 | 0.291 | 25 | 14.31 ± 2.61 | -0.046 | 0.022 | -0.915 |
els_value_living | 1st | 51 | 16.67 ± 3.08 | 50 | 17.64 ± 3.08 | 0.115 | -0.519 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 27 | 16.91 ± 2.79 | -0.128 | 25 | 18.06 ± 2.77 | -0.224 | 0.137 | -0.615 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 51 | 11.96 ± 3.24 | 50 | 13.54 ± 3.24 | 0.016 | -1.011 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 27 | 12.59 ± 2.76 | -0.403 | 25 | 13.86 ± 2.73 | -0.204 | 0.098 | -0.812 |
els | 1st | 51 | 28.63 ± 5.80 | 50 | 31.18 ± 5.80 | 0.029 | -0.892 | ||
els | 2nd | 27 | 29.48 ± 4.97 | -0.298 | 25 | 31.94 ± 4.91 | -0.267 | 0.074 | -0.862 |
social_connect | 1st | 51 | 27.69 ± 9.31 | 50 | 25.36 ± 9.31 | 0.212 | 0.525 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 27 | 28.79 ± 7.91 | -0.248 | 25 | 23.52 ± 7.81 | 0.416 | 0.017 | 1.189 |
shs_agency | 1st | 51 | 13.78 ± 4.97 | 50 | 15.24 ± 4.97 | 0.143 | -0.556 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 27 | 13.91 ± 4.32 | -0.048 | 25 | 16.01 ± 4.28 | -0.294 | 0.081 | -0.802 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 51 | 16.02 ± 3.89 | 50 | 17.02 ± 3.89 | 0.199 | -0.495 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 27 | 16.15 ± 3.38 | -0.062 | 25 | 16.99 ± 3.34 | 0.016 | 0.367 | -0.417 |
shs | 1st | 51 | 29.80 ± 8.41 | 50 | 32.26 ± 8.41 | 0.145 | -0.580 | ||
shs | 2nd | 27 | 30.06 ± 7.24 | -0.060 | 25 | 33.00 ± 7.16 | -0.176 | 0.142 | -0.696 |
esteem | 1st | 51 | 12.88 ± 1.61 | 50 | 12.44 ± 1.61 | 0.169 | 0.350 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 27 | 12.79 ± 1.56 | 0.076 | 25 | 12.72 ± 1.56 | -0.221 | 0.879 | 0.052 |
mlq_search | 1st | 51 | 14.61 ± 3.46 | 50 | 15.18 ± 3.46 | 0.408 | -0.241 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 27 | 14.82 ± 3.24 | -0.088 | 25 | 15.07 ± 3.23 | 0.047 | 0.780 | -0.106 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 51 | 13.20 ± 4.26 | 50 | 13.56 ± 4.26 | 0.668 | -0.146 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 27 | 13.51 ± 3.81 | -0.125 | 25 | 13.88 ± 3.78 | -0.128 | 0.725 | -0.149 |
mlq | 1st | 51 | 27.80 ± 6.99 | 50 | 28.74 ± 6.99 | 0.502 | -0.218 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 27 | 28.33 ± 6.35 | -0.122 | 25 | 28.98 ± 6.30 | -0.057 | 0.709 | -0.153 |
empower | 1st | 51 | 18.84 ± 4.26 | 50 | 19.94 ± 4.26 | 0.198 | -0.521 | ||
empower | 2nd | 27 | 19.06 ± 3.65 | -0.101 | 25 | 19.58 ± 3.61 | 0.173 | 0.606 | -0.247 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 51 | 14.31 ± 2.52 | 50 | 14.98 ± 2.52 | 0.187 | -0.367 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 27 | 14.38 ± 2.40 | -0.039 | 25 | 15.29 ± 2.39 | -0.168 | 0.176 | -0.497 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 51 | 12.14 ± 3.13 | 50 | 10.72 ± 3.13 | 0.025 | 0.822 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 27 | 11.73 ± 2.76 | 0.238 | 25 | 10.68 ± 2.73 | 0.026 | 0.170 | 0.610 |
sss_affective | 1st | 51 | 10.41 ± 3.58 | 50 | 9.60 ± 3.58 | 0.257 | 0.427 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 27 | 10.46 ± 3.12 | -0.024 | 25 | 8.51 ± 3.09 | 0.573 | 0.025 | 1.025 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 51 | 10.22 ± 3.75 | 50 | 9.08 ± 3.75 | 0.131 | 0.549 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 27 | 10.10 ± 3.30 | 0.056 | 25 | 8.37 ± 3.27 | 0.345 | 0.060 | 0.838 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 51 | 8.57 ± 3.64 | 50 | 7.52 ± 3.64 | 0.150 | 0.522 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 27 | 9.17 ± 3.21 | -0.302 | 25 | 6.95 ± 3.18 | 0.282 | 0.013 | 1.106 |
sss | 1st | 51 | 29.20 ± 10.09 | 50 | 26.20 ± 10.09 | 0.138 | 0.599 | ||
sss | 2nd | 27 | 29.73 ± 8.65 | -0.107 | 25 | 23.84 ± 8.55 | 0.472 | 0.015 | 1.177 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(141.47) = -0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.32)
2st
t(147.83) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(135.39) = 0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.76 to 1.47)
2st
t(147.47) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.44)
ras_confidence
1st
t(117.79) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.83)
2st
t(148.99) = 1.45, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.66 to 4.32)
ras_willingness
1st
t(117.73) = 0.74, p = 0.462, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.10)
2st
t(148.99) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.07 to 2.04)
ras_goal
1st
t(120.98) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.50)
2st
t(148.72) = 2.25, p = 0.026, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.36)
ras_reliance
1st
t(115.82) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.89 to 1.38)
2st
t(148.93) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.63)
ras_domination
1st
t(132.58) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.27)
2st
t(147.50) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.99)
symptom
1st
t(109.34) = -1.13, p = 0.259, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-5.92 to 1.61)
2st
t(145.13) = -1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-7.35 to 1.30)
slof_work
1st
t(115.32) = 0.52, p = 0.605, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.37 to 2.35)
2st
t(148.87) = 0.50, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.68 to 2.83)
slof_relationship
1st
t(113.23) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.95 to 3.63)
2st
t(148.32) = 2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.14 to 5.59)
satisfaction
1st
t(119.99) = 2.04, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.52)
2st
t(148.83) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.67 to 6.12)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(112.21) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.29)
2st
t(147.82) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.11)
mhc_social
1st
t(118.30) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.20)
2st
t(148.97) = -0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.33 to 2.26)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(116.76) = 0.62, p = 0.537, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.78 to 3.40)
2st
t(148.99) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.87 to 3.48)
resilisnce
1st
t(121.33) = 1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.76 to 2.77)
2st
t(148.67) = 2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.11 to 4.55)
social_provision
1st
t(123.47) = 1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.19)
2st
t(148.38) = 2.32, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.25 to 3.12)
els_value_living
1st
t(120.66) = 1.59, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.19)
2st
t(148.76) = 1.50, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.68)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(111.92) = 2.45, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.30 to 2.86)
2st
t(147.64) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.77)
els
1st
t(112.56) = 2.21, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.26 to 4.84)
2st
t(148.01) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.24 to 5.17)
social_connect
1st
t(111.56) = -1.26, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-6.00 to 1.35)
2st
t(147.39) = -2.42, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-9.58 to -0.96)
shs_agency
1st
t(114.74) = 1.47, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.50 to 3.41)
2st
t(148.77) = 1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.26 to 4.46)
shs_pathway
1st
t(114.22) = 1.29, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.53)
2st
t(148.65) = 0.90, p = 0.367, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.69)
shs
1st
t(113.22) = 1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.86 to 5.77)
2st
t(148.32) = 1.47, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-1.00 to 6.90)
esteem
1st
t(136.31) = -1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.19)
2st
t(147.49) = -0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.79)
mlq_search
1st
t(127.02) = 0.83, p = 0.408, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.94)
2st
t(147.93) = 0.28, p = 0.780, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.03)
mlq_presence
1st
t(118.71) = 0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.04)
2st
t(148.95) = 0.35, p = 0.725, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.45)
mlq
1st
t(121.09) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.82 to 3.69)
2st
t(148.70) = 0.37, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.81 to 4.12)
empower
1st
t(112.66) = 1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.78)
2st
t(148.06) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.51)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(130.10) = 1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.66)
2st
t(147.64) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.21)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(116.28) = -2.27, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 0.82, 95% CI (-2.65 to -0.18)
2st
t(148.97) = -1.38, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.56 to 0.46)
sss_affective
1st
t(115.00) = -1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.22 to 0.60)
2st
t(148.82) = -2.26, p = 0.025, Cohen d = 1.02, 95% CI (-3.65 to -0.24)
sss_behavior
1st
t(116.36) = -1.52, p = 0.131, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.61 to 0.34)
2st
t(148.98) = -1.90, p = 0.060, Cohen d = 0.84, 95% CI (-3.54 to 0.07)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(116.44) = -1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.39)
2st
t(148.98) = -2.51, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.97 to -0.47)
sss
1st
t(112.75) = -1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-6.97 to 0.98)
2st
t(148.10) = -2.47, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-10.61 to -1.17)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(75.94) = 2.20, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.06)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(70.84) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.52)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(59.79) = 2.28, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.23 to 3.41)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(59.75) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.74)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(61.58) = 2.10, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.05 to 2.16)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(58.70) = 3.19, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.22)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(68.82) = 2.51, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.03)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(55.26) = -1.08, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.07)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(58.43) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.47 to 1.30)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(57.31) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.23 to 1.99)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(61.02) = 0.71, p = 0.967, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.04)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(56.77) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.93)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(60.07) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.95)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(59.22) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.27)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(61.78) = 1.95, p = 0.113, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.95)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(63.03) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.07)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(61.40) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.44)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(56.61) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.18)
els
1st vs 2st
t(56.95) = 0.97, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.81 to 2.34)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(56.42) = -1.51, p = 0.273, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-4.29 to 0.60)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(58.12) = 1.07, p = 0.576, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.20)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(57.84) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.08)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(57.31) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.07)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(71.53) = 0.85, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.94)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(65.18) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.15)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(60.30) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.67)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(61.65) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.08 to 2.57)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(57.00) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.80)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(67.14) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.27)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(58.96) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.90)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(58.26) = -2.09, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.13 to -0.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(59.00) = -1.26, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.42)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(59.04) = -1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.66 to 0.53)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(57.05) = -1.72, p = 0.184, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.11 to 0.40)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(74.15) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.63)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(69.42) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.33 to 0.89)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(59.16) = 1.05, p = 0.599, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.34)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(59.13) = -2.12, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.25 to -0.04)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(60.83) = -0.86, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.58)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(58.15) = 0.87, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.18)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(67.55) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.58)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(54.93) = -0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.58 to 1.86)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(57.90) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.16)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(56.85) = -1.48, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.41)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(60.31) = 0.80, p = 0.848, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.04)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(56.34) = 0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.34)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(59.42) = 0.72, p = 0.953, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.36)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(58.63) = 0.80, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.70)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(61.02) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.57)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(62.18) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.49 to 0.42)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(60.66) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 1.22)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(56.20) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.46)
els
1st vs 2st
t(56.52) = 1.12, p = 0.533, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.37)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(56.02) = 0.93, p = 0.709, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.46)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(57.60) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.51)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(57.35) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.20)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(56.85) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.50)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(70.07) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.54)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(64.17) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.43)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(59.63) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.61)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(60.89) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.77)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(56.56) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.33)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(66.00) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.00)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(58.38) = -0.91, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.50)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(57.74) = 0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.05)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(58.42) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.97)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(58.46) = 1.15, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.66)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(56.61) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-2.12 to 3.19)